Ramkrishna-Vivekananda: Mukto Moner Aaloy (1996) Edited by: Rajesh Datta (Ramakrishna-Vivekananda: In The Light of Freethinking) Publisher: Radical Impression, Kolkata. This Bengali book published in the year 1996 re-evaluates philosophy and thought of Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda from rationalistic outlook. Second and third edition of this book got published in 1998 and 2002.

A Radio programme in Bengali titled ‘Drishtipat’ in protest of the brutal assassination of Eminent Marathi Rationalist Activist Martyr Dr. Narendra Dabholkar broadcast from ‘Akashvani Kolkata’ on 9 September, Monday at 9-30 pm. Presented and Produced by Dr. Manaspratim Das. A gentle apology for poor quality of audio as it is an ordinary cell phone recording.Total duration: 27:56 minutes.

A Brief History of Science Movement

A Brief History of Science Movement written by Sabyasachi Chattopadhyay is a research article on the history of Science movement and the development of scientific consciousness and rationalism in West Bengal, India and Bangladesh published in ‘Utsa Manush’, a popular Bengali little magazine on people’s science and culture. (From January-February 2000 to July-August 2001)

The Rationalist Movement in West Bengal

The Movement for the Development of Rationalism in West Bengal by Sabyasachi Chattopadhyay. It is a research paper on the development of Rationalist movement in West Bengal published in Contemporary History of India- IHC: Proceedings, 71st Session, 2010-2011

যুক্তির পথে যাত্রা : প্রসঙ্গ পশ্চিমবঙ্গ – সব্যসাচী চট্টোপাধ্যায়

A Bengali article on the brief history of Bharatiya Bijnan o Yuktibadi Samity and the advancement of Rationalism in West Bengal written by Sabyasachi Chattopadhyay. (Contemporary History of India : Paschimbanga Itihas Sansad, Volume- 14, Year-2000, Page-634-641)

“Guru Busters”, a popular documentary film produced and directed by the British film maker Robert Eagle, portrayed Indian Rationalists exhibiting and teaching many apparently “supernatural” stunts such as levitation, flesh piercing, live burials, fire walking etc. This documentary film, about the Indian Rationalists’ movement to obliterate superstition, religious hoax and quackery in India, provoked controversy with its vivid depiction of the activities of leading Indian rationalist campaigners. It showed that the alleged miracles of India’s god-men are little more than a magician’s petty tricks. The film was broadcast on Channel 4, BBC, UK, in the year 1995. I was in the documentary film and it was my great experience working with Robert and his team. I enjoyed a lot the shooting trip. I relish those memorable days when we travel around the villages of West Bengal from Fraud Fakir S. P. Ali’s hermitage (who made “miraculous” fire ball) at Barasat to the snake charmer’s village at Nadia district.Please watch some interesting video clips from Robert Eagle’s documentary ‘GURU BUSTERS’ exposing supernatural stunts and tricksters in India, including some of the country’s most famous gurus and “god men”. Click the following link:http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2D6C82AA61986624

Bhagat Singh (28 September 1907 – 23 March 1931) was an Indian freedom fighter, considered to be one of the most influential revolutionaries of the Indian independence movement. He is often referred to as Shaheed Bhagat Singh (the word shaheed meaning “martyr”).

Born to a Jat Sikh family which had earlier been involved in revolutionary activities against the British Raj, Singh, as a teenager, became an atheist and had studied European revolutionary movements. He also became attracted to anarchism and marxist ideologies.He became involved in numerous revolutionary organizations. He quickly rose through the ranks of the Hindustan Republican Association (HRA) and became one of its leaders, converting it to the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA). Singh gained support when he underwent a 64-day fast in jail, demanding equal rights for Indian and British political prisoners.He was hanged for shooting a police officer in response to a police lathi charge leading to the demise of veteran freedom fighter Lala Lajpat Rai. His legacy prompted youths in India to begin fighting for Indian independence and contributed to the rise of socialism in India.

Early life

Bhagat Singh was born into a Sandhu Jatt family to Sardar Kishan Singh Sandhu and Vidyavati in a village in the Lyallpur district of Punjab. His ancestral village is the Khatkar Kalan village near Banga in Nawanshahr District of Punjab.The District has recently been renamed as Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. Singh’s given name of Bhagat means “devotee”, and he was nicknamed “Bhaganwala” by his grandmother, meaning “The lucky one”. He came from a patriotic Jatt Sikh family, some of whom had participated in movements supporting the independence of India and others who had served in Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s army. His grandfather, Arjun Singh, was a follower of Swami Dayananda Saraswati’s Hindu reformist movement, Arya Samaj, which would carry a heavy influence on Singh. His uncles, Ajit Singh and Swaran Singh, as well as his father were members of the Ghadar Party, led by Kartar Singh Sarabha Grewal and Har Dayal. Ajit Singh was forced to flee to Persia because of pending cases against him while Swaran Singh was hanged on 19 December 1927 for his involvement in the Kakori train robbery of 1925.

Unlike many Sikhs his age, Singh did not attend Khalsa High School in Lahore, because his grandfather did not approve of the school officials’ loyalism to the British authorities.Instead, his father enrolled him in Dayanand Anglo Vedic High School, an Arya Samajist school. At age 13, Singh began to follow Mahatma Gandhi’s Non-Cooperation Movement. At this point he had openly defied the British and had followed Gandhi’s wishes by burning his government-school books and any British-imported clothing. Following Gandhi’s withdrawal of the movement after the violent murders of policemen by villagers from Chauri Chaura, Uttar Pradesh, Singh, disgruntled with Gandhi’s nonviolence action, joined the Young Revolutionary Movement and began advocating a violent movement against the British.

In 1923, Bhagat famously won an essay competition set by the Punjab Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. This grabbed the attention of members of the Punjab Hindi Sahitya Sammelan including its General Secretary Professor Bhim Sen Vidyalankar. At this age, he quoted famous Punjabi literature and discussed the Problems of the Punjab. He read a lot of poetry and literature which was written by Punjabi writers and his favourite poet was Allama Iqbal from Sialkot.

In his teenage years, Bhagat Singh started studying at the National College in Lahore,but ran away from home to escape early marriage, and became a member of the organisation Naujawan Bharat Sabha (“Youth Society of India”).In the Naujawan Bharat Sabha, Singh and his fellow revolutionaries grew popular amongst the youth. He also joined the Hindustan Republican Association through introduction by history teacher, Professor Vidyalankar,which had prominent leaders like Ram Prasad Bismil, Chandrashekhar Azad and Ashfaqulla Khan. It is believed that he went to Kanpur to attempt free Kakori train robbery prisoners from the jail, but returned to Lahore for unknown reasons. On the day of Dasara in October 1926, a bomb was blasted in Lahore, and Bhagat Singh was arrested for his alleged involvement in this Dasara Bomb Case in 29 May 1927,and was released on a bail of Rs.60,000 after about five weeks of his arrest. He wrote for and edited Urdu and Punjabi newspapers published from Amritsar. In September 1928, a meeting of various revolutionaries from across India was called at Delhi under the banner of the Kirti Kissan Party. Bhagat Singh was the secretary of the meet. His later revolutionary activities were carried out as a leader of this association.

Later revolutionary activities

Lala Lajpat Rai’s death and the Saunders murderThe British government created a commission under Sir John Simon to report on the current political situation in India in 1928. The Indian political parties boycotted the commission because it did not include a single Indian as its member and it was met with protests all over the country. When the commission visited Lahore on 30 October 1928, Lala Lajpat Rai led the protest against Simon Commission in a silent non-violent march, but the police responded with violence.Lala Lajpat Rai was beaten with lathis at the chest.He later succumbed to his injuries.Bhagat Singh, who was an eyewitness to this event, vowed to take revenge.He joined with other revolutionaries, Shivaram Rajguru, Jai Gopal and Sukhdev Thapar, in a plot to kill the police chief, Scott. Jai Gopal was supposed to identify the chief and signal for Singh to shoot. However, in a case of mistaken identity, Gopal signalled Singh on the appearance of J. P. Saunders, a Deputy Superintendent of Police. Thus, Saunders, instead of Scott, was shot. Shahid Bhagat Singh quickly left Lahore to escape the police. To avoid recognition, he shaved his beard and cut his hair, a violation of the sacred tenets of Sikhism.

Bomb in the assemblyIn the face of actions by the revolutionaries, the British government enacted the Defence of India Act to give more power to the police. The purpose of the Act was to combat revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh.However, the Act was then passed under the ordinance that claimed that it was in the best interest of the public. In response to this act, the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association planned to explode a bomb in the Central Legislative Assembly where the ordinance was going to be passed. This idea was originated by Bhagat Singh, who was influenced by a similar bombing by a martyr anarchist Auguste Vaillant in the French Assembly.It was decided that Bhagat Singh should go to Russia, while Batukeshwar Dutt should carry on the bombing with Sukhdev.Sukhdev then forced Bhagat Singh to call for another meeting and here it was decided, against the initial agreement, that Batukeshwar Dutt and Bhagat Singh would carry on the bombing. Bhagat Singh also disapproved that the two should be escorted after the bombing by the rest of the party.

On 8 April 1929, Singh and Dutt threw a bomb onto the corridors of the assembly and shouted “Inquilab Zindabad!” (“Long Live the Revolution!”). This was followed by a shower of leaflets stating that it takes a loud voice to make the deaf hear.

The bomb neither killed nor injured anyone; Singh and Dutt claimed that this was deliberate on their part, a claim substantiated both by British forensics investigators who found that the bomb was not powerful enough to cause injury, and by the fact that the bomb was thrown away from people.Singh and Dutt gave themselves up for arrest after the bomb.He and Dutt were sentenced to ‘Transportation for Life’ for the bombing on 12 June 1929.

Trial and execution

On 15 April 1929, the ‘Lahore Bomb Factory’ was discovered by the Lahore police, and the other members of HSRA were arrested, out of which 7 turned informants, helping the police to connect Bhagat Singh in the murder of J. P. Saunders.Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, and Sukhdev were charged with the murder. Bhagat Singh decided to use the court as a tool to publicise his cause for the independence of India. The case was ordered to be carried out without members of the HSRA present at the hearing. This created an uproar amongst Singh’s supporters as he could no longer publicise his views.

While in jail, Bhagat Singh and other prisoners launched a hunger strike advocating for the rights of prisoners and those facing trial. The reason for the strike was that British murderers and thieves were treated better than Indian political prisoners, who, by law, were meant to be given better rights. The aims in their strike were to ensure a decent standard of food for political prisoners, the availability of books and a daily newspaper, as well as better clothing and the supply of toiletry necessities and other hygienic necessities. He also demanded that political prisoners should not be forced to do any labour or undignified work.During this hunger strike that lasted 63 days and ended with the British succumbing to his wishes, he gained much popularity among the common Indians. Before the strike his popularity was limited mainly to the Punjab region.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah, one of the politicians present when the Central Legislative Assembly was bombed, made no secret of his sympathies for the Lahore prisoners – commenting on the hunger strike he said “the man who goes on hunger strike has a soul. He is moved by that soul, and he believes in the justice of his cause.” And talking of Singh’s actions said “however much you deplore them and however much you say they are misguided, it is the system, this damnable system of governance, which is resented by the people”.

On 1 May 1930, by declaring an emergency, an ordinance was passed by Lord Irwin, that shifted the Lahore Conspiracy Case Trial from the court of Rai Sahib Pandit Sri Kishan to a Special Tribunal of three judges. This Special Tribunal was given the power to proceed with the case in the absence of the accused and accept death of the persons giving evidence as a benefit to the defence. Also, the verdict of this special court could not be challenged in higher court. On 7 October 1930, this tribunal convicted Singh among others and sentenced him to be hanged till death.

An abortive plan had been made to rescue Bhagat Singh and fellow inmates of HSRA from the jail, for the purpose of which Bhagwati Charan Vohra made bombs, but died making them as they exploded accidentally.

Bhagat Singh also maintained the use of a diary, which he eventually made to fill 404 pages. In this diary he made numerous notes relating to the quotations and popular sayings of various people whose views he supported. Prominent in his diary were the views of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The comments in his diary led to an understanding of the philosophical thinking of Bhagat Singh.

While in the condemned cell, he also wrote a pamphlet entitled “Why I am an atheist”, as he was being accused of vanity by not accepting God in the face of death.It is also said that he signed a mercy petition through a comrade Bijoy Kumar Sinha on 8 March 1931.

On 23 March 1931, Bhagat Singh was hanged in Lahore with his fellow comrades Rajguru and Sukhdev. His supporters, who had been protesting against the hanging, immediately declared him as a shaheed or martyr.According to the Superintendent of Police at the time, V.N. Smith, the hanging was advanced:

Normally execution took place at 8 am, but it was decided to act at once before the public could become aware of what had happened…At about 7 pm shouts of Inquilab Zindabad were heard from inside the jail. This was interpreted, correctly, as a signal that the final curtain was about to drop.

Bhagat Singh Memorial

Singh was cremated at Hussainiwala on banks of the Sutlej river. The Bhagat Singh Memorial was built in 2009 in his hometown of Khatkar Kalan at a cost of Rs.168 million.

Bhagat Singh Museum

A museum by the name “Shaheed-e-azam Sardar Bhagat Singh Museum” has been built at his maternal village, where sand and newspaper stained with his blood and his half burnt bones are preserved.

Ideals and opinions

Bhagat Singh was attracted to anarchism and communism. Both communism and western anarchism had influence on him. He read the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and Bakunin.Bhagat Singh did not believe in Gandhian philosophy and felt that Gandhian politics would replace one set of exploiters with another. Bhagat Singh was an atheist and promoted the concept of atheism by writing a pamphlet titled Why I am an Atheist. Bhagat Singh was also an admirer of the writings of Irish revolutionary Terence MacSwiney. When Bhagat Singh’s father petitioned the British government to pardon his son, Bhagat Singh quoted Terence MacSwiney and said “I am confident that my death will do more to smash the British Empire than my release” and told his father to withdraw the petition.

Some of his writings like “Blood Sprinkled on the Day of Holi Babbar Akalis on the Crucifix” were influenced by the struggle of Dharam Singh Hayatpur.

Anarchism

From May to September, 1928, Bhagat Singh serially published several articles on anarchism in Punjabi periodical Kirti.He expressed concern over misunderstanding of the concept of anarchism among the public. Singh tried to eradicate the misconception among people about anarchism. He wrote, “The people are scared of the word anarchism. The word anarchism has been abused so much that even in India revolutionaries have been called anarchist to make them unpopular.” As anarchism means absence of ruler and abolition of state, not absence of order, Singh explained, “I think in India the idea of universal brotherhood, the Sanskrit sentence vasudhaiva kutumbakam etc., has the same meaning.” He wrote about the growth of anarchism,”the first man to explicitly propagate the theory of Anarchism was Proudhon and that is why he is called the founder of Anarchism. After him a Russian, Bakunin, worked hard to spread the doctrine. He was followed by Prince Kropotkin etc.”

Bhagat Singh explained anarchism in the article:

The ultimate goal of Anarchism is complete independence, according to which no one will be obsessed with God or religion, nor will anybody be crazy for money or other worldly desires. There will be no chains on the body or control by the state. This means that they want to eliminate: the Church, God and Religion; the state; Private property.

Marxism

Bhagat Singh was also influenced by Marxism. Indian historian K. N. Panikkar described Singh as one of the early Marxists in India. From 1926, Bhagat Singh studied the history of the revolutionary movement in India and abroad. In his prison notebooks, Singh used quotations from Vladmir Lenin (on imperialism being the highest stage of capitalism) and Trotsky on revolution. In written documents, when asked what was his last wish, he replied that he was studying the life of Lenin and he wanted to finish it before his death.

“Revolution” does not necessarily involve sanguinary strife nor is there any place in it for individual vendetta. It is not the cult of the bomb and the pistol. By “Revolution” we mean that the present order of things, which is based on manifest injustice, must change. Producers or labourers in spite of being the most necessary element of society, are robbed by their exploiters of the fruits of their labour and deprived of their elementary rights. The peasant who grows corn for all, starves with his family, the weaver who supplies the world market with textile fabrics, has not enough to cover his own and his children’s bodies, masons, smiths and carpenters who raise magnificent palaces, live like pariahs in the slums. The capitalists and exploiters, the parasites of society, squander millions on their whims. These terrible inequalities and forced disparity of chances are bound to lead to chaos. This state of affairs cannot last long, and it is obvious, that the present order of society in merry-making is on the brink of a volcano.

The whole edifice of this civilization, if not saved in time, shall crumble. A radical change, therefore, is necessary and it is the duty of those who realize it to reorganize society on the socialistic basis. Unless this thing is done and the exploitation of man by man and of nations by nations is brought to an end, sufferings and carnage with which humanity is threatened today cannot be prevented. All talk of ending war and ushering in an era of universal peace is undisguised hypocrisy.

By “Revolution”, we mean the ultimate establishment of an order of society which may not be threatened by such breakdown, and in which the sovereignty of the proletariat should be recognized and a world federation should redeem humanity from the bondage of capitalism and misery of imperial wars.”

(An excerpt from the statement of Martyr Bhagat Singh and B. K. Dutta in the Assembly Bomb Case, Read in the Court on 6th June, 1929, by Mr. Asaf Ali on behalf of Bhagat Singh and B.K. Dutta)

Atheism

Singh began to question religious ideologies after witnessing the Hindu-Muslim riots that broke out after Gandhi disbanded the Non-Cooperation Movement.He did not understand how members of these two groups, initially united in fighting against the British, could be at each others’ throats because of their religious differences. At this point, Singh dropped his religious beliefs, since he believed religion hindered the revolutionaries’ struggle for independence, and began studying the works of Bakunin, Lenin, Trotsky — all atheist revolutionaries. He also took an interest in Niralamba Swami’s book Common Sense, which advocated a form of “mystic atheism”.

While in a condemned cell in 1931, he wrote a pamphlet entitled Why I am an Atheist in which he discusses and advocates the philosophy of atheism. This pamphlet was a result of some criticism by fellow revolutionaries on his failure to acknowledge religion and God while in a condemned cell, the accusation of vanity was also dealt with in this pamphlet. He supported his own beliefs and claimed that he used to be a firm believer in The Almighty, but could not bring himself to believe the myths and beliefs that others held close to their hearts. In this pamphlet, he acknowledged the fact that religion made death easier, but also said that unproved philosophy is a sign of human weakness.

Death

Bhagat Singh was known for his appreciation of martyrdom. His mentor as a young boy was Kartar Singh Sarabha. Singh is himself considered a martyr for acting to avenge the death of Lala Lajpat Rai. In the leaflet he threw in the Central Assembly on 9 April 1929, he stated thatIt is easy to kill individuals but you cannot kill the ideas. Great empires crumbled while the ideas survived.After engaging in studies on the Russian Revolution, he wanted to die so that his death would inspire the youth of India which in turn will unite them to fight the British Empire.

While in prison, Bhagat Singh and two others had written a letter to the Viceroy asking him to treat them as prisoners of war and hence to execute them by firing squad and not by hanging. Prannath Mehta, Bhagat Singh’s friend, visited him in the jail on 20 March, four days before his execution, with a draft letter for clemency, but he declined to sign it.

Conspiracy theories

Mahatma GandhiOne of the most popular ones is that Mahatma Gandhi had an opportunity to stop Singh’s execution but did not. A variation of this theory is that Gandhi actively conspired with the British to have Singh executed. Gandhi’s supporters say that Gandhi did not have enough influence with the British to stop the execution, much less arrange it. Furthermore, Gandhi’s supporters assert that Singh’s role in the independence movement was no threat to Gandhi’s role as its leader, and so Gandhi would have no reason to want him dead.

Gandhi, during his lifetime, always maintained that he was a great admirer of Singh’s patriotism. He also said that he was opposed to Singh’s execution (and, for that matter, capital punishment in general) and proclaimed that he had no power to stop it. On Singh’s execution, Gandhi said, “The government certainly had the right to hang these men. However, there are some rights which do credit to those who possess them only if they are enjoyed in name only.”Gandhi also once said, on capital punishment, “I cannot in all conscience agree to anyone being sent to the gallows. God alone can take life because He alone gives it.”

Gandhi had managed to have 90,000 political prisoners who were not members of his Satyagraha movement released under the Gandhi-Irwin Pact.According to a report in the Indian magazine Frontline, he did plead several times for the commutation of the death sentence of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev, including a personal visit on 19 March 1931, and in a letter to the Viceroy on the day of their execution, pleading fervently for commutation, not knowing that the letter would be too late.

Lord Irwin, the Viceroy, later said:

As I listened to Mr. Gandhi putting the case for commutation before me, I reflected first on what significance it surely was that the apostle of non-violence should so earnestly be pleading the cause of the devotees of a creed so fundamentally opposed to his own, but I should regard it as wholly wrong to allow my judgment to be influenced by purely political considerations. I could not imagine a case in which under the law, penalty had been more directly deserved.

However, Gandhi did appreciate Bhagat’s patriotism and how he had overcome the fear of death, but did not support the violence involved.

“We should not imitate their act. In our land of millions of destitute and crippled people, if we take to the practice of seeking justice through murder, there will be a terrifying situation. Our poor people will become victims of our atrocities. By making a dharma of violence, we shall be reaping the fruit of our own actions. Hence, though we praise the courage of these brave men, we should never countenance their activities. Our dharma is to swallow our anger, abide by the discipline of non-violence and carry out our duty.”
(Excerpted from Gandhi’s article on the martyrdom of Bhagat Singh in “Young India”, March 29, 1931)

Saunders familyOn 28 October 2005, a book entitled Some Hidden Facts: Martyrdom of Shaheed Bhagat Singh—Secrets unfurled by an Intelligence Bureau Agent of British-India by K.S. Kooner and G.S. Sindhra was released. The book asserts that Singh, Rajguru, and Sukhdev were deliberately hanged in such a manner as to leave all three in a semi-conscious state, so that all three could later be taken outside the prison and shot dead by the Saunders family. The book says that this was a prison operation code named “Operation Trojan Horse.” Scholars are skeptical of the book’s claims.

Legacy

Indian independence movement

Bhagat Singh’s death had the effect that he desired and he inspired thousands of youths to assist the remainder of the Indian independence movement. After his hanging, youths in regions around Northern India rioted in protest against the British Raj and Gandhi.

Modern daySingh’s contribution to Indian societyand, in particular, the future of socialism in India. To celebrate the centenary of his birth, a group of intellectuals have set up an institution to commemorate Singh and his ideals.

Several popular Bollywood films have been made capturing the life and times of Bhagat Singh.Possibly the first is Shaheed-e-Azad Bhagat Singh (1954); followed by Shaheed Bhagat Singh (1963), starring Shammi Kapoor as Bhagat Singh. Two years later, Manoj Kumar portrayed Bhagat Singh in an immensely popular and landmark film, Shaheed. Two major films about Singh were released in 2002, The Legend of Bhagat Singh and 23rd March 1931: Shaheed. The Legend of Bhagat Singh is Rajkumar Santoshi’s adaptation, in which Ajay Devgan played Singh and Amrita Rao was featured in a brief role. 23rd March 1931: Shaheed was directed by Guddu Dhanoa and starred Bobby Deol as Singh, with Sunny Deol and Aishwarya Rai in supporting roles. Another major film Shaheed-E-Azam, starring Sonu Sood, Maanav Vij, Rajinder Gupta, and Sadhana Singh, and directed by Sukumar Nair, also was produced by Iqbal Dhillon under the banner Surjit Movies.Movies on Bhagat Singh

Shaheed-e-Azad Bhagat Singh (1954)

Shaheed Bhagat Singh (1963)

Shaheed (1965)

The Legend of Bhagat Singh (2002)

23rd March 1931: Shaheed (2002)

Shaheed-E-Azam(2003)

Rang De Basanti(2006)

The 2006 film Rang De Basanti is a film drawing parallels between revolutionaries of Bhagat Singh’s era and modern Indian youth. It covers a lot of Bhagat Singh’s role in the Indian freedom struggle. The movie revolves around a group of college students and how they each play the roles of Bhagat’s friends and family.

The patriotic Urdu and Hindi songs, Sarfaroshi ki Tamanna (translated as “the desire to sacrifice”) and Mera Rang De Basanti Chola (“my light-yellow-coloured cloak”; Basanti referring to the light-yellow color of the Mustard flower grown in the Punjab and also one of the two main colours of the Sikh religion as per the Sikh rehat meryada(code of conduct of the Sikh Saint-Soldier) ), while created by Ram Prasad Bismil, are largely associated to Bhagat Singh’s martyrdom and have been used in a number of Bhagat Singh-related films.

In September 2007 the Governor of Punjab province, Khalid Maqbool, announced that a memorial to Bhagat Singh will be displayed at Lahore museum, according to the governor “Singh was the first martyr of the subcontinent and his example was followed by many youth of the time.”

Criticism

Bhagat Singh was criticised both by his contemporaries and by people after his death because of his violent and revolutionary stance towards the British and his strong opposition to the pacifist stance taken by the Indian National Congress and particularly Mahatma Gandhi. The methods he used to make his point—shooting Saunders and throwing non-lethal bombs—were quite different from Gandhi’s non-violent methodology. Please click the link given below:Mahatma Gandhi on the Martyrdom of Bhagat Singh

Quotations

“The aim of life is no more to control the mind, but to develop it harmoniously; not to achieve salvation here after, but to make the best use of it here below; and not to realise truth, beauty and good only in contemplation, but also in the actual experience of daily life; social progress depends not upon the ennoblement of the few but on the enrichment of democracy; universal brotherhood can be achieved only when there is an equality of opportunity – of opportunity in the social, political and individual life.” — from Bhagat Singh’s prison diary, p. 124

“Inquilab Zindabad” (Long live the revolution)

After 63 years of Independence, around 400 million unorganised workers struggle to survive without any tangible right, though they substantially contribute to the national income. No employment regulation, no pension, no maternity benefits, no accident compensation, no provision to get even the minimum wages or health benefits. Instead, crumbs of social assistance schemes are thrown at them by the state as charity.

Ye Kaisi Aazadi Hai? asks Jagjit Singh, joining the campaigners of Social Security Now, a network of trade unions, civil society organisations, people’s movements and concerned individuals fighting for securing Social Security Rights for the countless, voiceless unorganised workers. This is your song. Please share it with all the concerned citizens.

Lyrics: Nida Fazli, Music: Jagjit Singh, Dir: Pravin Mishra

The revolutionary spirit of Shaheed Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru is an unfailing source of inspiration to the youth of the country. Their courage, bravery, spirit of struggle and sacrifice are an example to one and all.

Shaheed Bhagat Singh was a Great Indian Freedom Fighter, considered to be one of the most influential revolutionaries of the Indian independence movement.

“BHAGAT SINGH is to be hanged!“- When the news spread, the people all over the country were mad with rage. Thousands of appeals were sent to the British government, pleading that his death sentence should be commuted. Several politicians and social activists joined in the appeal. But all attempts failed. Even the members of the prisoners’ families were not allowed to meet them. Sukhdev and Rajguru were the other two to be hanged with Bhagat Singh. Three of them were hanged to death a day before the assigned date because British officials feared a revolt from the Indians.

March 23 is observed as “MARTYRS’ DAY” to remember the contribution of Shaheed Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Rajguru and other brave ‘Krantikaaris‘ who paved way for Indian Independence.

HOLD HIGH THE BANNER OF PEOPLE’S RESISTANCE AGAINST IMPERIALIST AGGRESSION FROM SINGUR-NANDIGRAM TO LALGARH! LONG LIVE PEOPLE’S RESISTANCE AGAINST THE STATE-SPONSORED TERRORISM!

Henry Louis Vivian Derozio (18 April 1809 – 26 December 1831) was a fiery Indian teacher and poet. As a lecturer at the Hindu College of Calcutta, he invigorated a large group of students to think independently; this Young Bengal group played a key role in the Bengal renaissance.

Derozio was generally considered an Anglo-Indian, being of mixed Portuguese descent, but he was fired by a patriotic spirit for his native Bengal, and considered himself Indian. In his poem To My Native Land he wrote:

“

My Country! In the days of Glory Past. A beauteous halo circled round thy brow. And worshiped as deity thou wast, Where is that Glory, where is that reverence now?

”

Contents

Early life

The son of Francis Derozio, he was born at Entally-Padmapukur in Kolkata on 18 April 1809. He attended David Drummond’s Dhurramtallah Academy school, where he was a star pupil, reading widely on topics like the French revolution and Robert Burns. Drummond, “a dour Scotsman, an exile and a ‘notorious free thinker'”,[1] instilled in him a passion for learning and superstition-free rational thinking, in addition to a solid grounding in history, philosophy and English literature.

He quit school at the age of 14 and initially joined his father’s concern at Kolkata and later shifted to Bhagalpur. Inspired by the scenic beauty of the banks of the River Ganges, he started writing poetry. Some of these were published in Dr. Grant’s India Gazette. His critical review of a book by Emmanuel Kant attracted the attention of the intelligentsia. In 1828, he went to Kolkata with the objective of publishing his long poem – Fakir of Jhungeera. On learning that a faculty position was vacant at the newly established Hindu College, he applied for it and was selected.

This was the time when Hindu society in Bengal was undergoing considerable turmoil. In 1828, Raja Ram Mohan Roy established the Brahmo Samaj, which kept Hindu ideals but denied idolatry. This resulted in a backlash within orthodox Hindu society. It is in the perspective of these changes that Derozio was appointed at Hindu college, where he helped released the ideas for social change already in the air.

Hindu College and Social Backlash

In May 1826, at the age of 17, he was appointed teacher in English literature and history at the new Hindu College, which had been set up recently to meet the interest in English education among Indians. He was initially a teacher in the second and third classes, later also of the fourth, but he attracted students from all classes. He interacted freely with students, well beyond the class hours. His zeal for interacting with students was legendary.

His brilliant lectures presented closely-reasoned arguments based on his wide reading. He encouraged students to read Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man and other free-thinking texts. Although Derozio himself was an atheist and had renounced Christianity, he encouraged questioning the orthodox Hindu customs and conventions on the basis of Italian renaissance and its offshoot rationalism. He infused in his students the spirit of free expression, the yearning for knowledge and a passion to live up to their identity, while questioning irrational religious and cultural practices.

Derozio’s intense zeal for teaching and his interactions with students created a sensation at Hindu College. His students came to be known as Derozians. He organised debates where ideas and social norms were freely debated. In 1828, he motivated them to form a literary and debating club called the Academic Association. In 1830, this club brought out a magazine named Parthenon (only one issue came out[2]). Apart from articles criticizing Hindu practices, the students wrote on women emancipation and criticized many aspects of British rule. He also encouraged students into journalism, to spread these ideas into a society eager for change. In mid 1831, he helped Krishna Mohan Banerjee start an English weekly, The Enquirer, while Dakshinaranjan Mukherjee and Rasik Krishna Mallick began publishing a Bengali paper, the Jnananvesan[3]

He took great pleasure in his interactions with students, writing about them:

Expanding like the petals of young flowers

I watch the gentle opening of your minds…

He was close in age to most of his students (some were older than he was). The motto of the Derozians was:

He who will not reason is a bigot, he who cannot reason is a fool, and he who does not reason is a slave.[1]

So all ideas were open to challenge. Many of his inner circle of students eventually rebelled against Hindu orthodoxy, and joined the Brahmo Samaj, while some like Krishna Mohan Banerjee converted to Christianity, and others like Ramtanu Lahiri gave up their sacred thread. Others went on to write in Bengali, including Peary Chand Mitra, who authored the first novel in Bengali.

The radicalism of his teaching and his student group caused an intense backlash against him.

Expulsion

Tomb of Henry Louis Vivian Derozio

Due to his unorthodox (legendarily free) views on society, culture and religion, the Hindu-dominated management committee of the college, under the chairmanship of Radhakanta Deb, expelled him as a faculty member by a 6:1 vote, for having

materially injured [the student’s] Morals and introduced some strange system the tendency of which is destruction to their moral character and to the peace in Society. … In consequence of his misunderstanding no less than 25 Pupils of respectable families have been withdrawn from the College.[4]

Though facing penury, he continued his interaction with his students, indeed, he was able to do more, helping them bring out several newspapers, etc. However, at the end of the year, he contracted cholera, which was fatal at the time, and died on 26 December 1831 at the age of 22. Being a Christian apostate, he was denied burial inside South Park Street Cemetery; instead he was buried just outside it on the road.

Poetry

Derozio idolized Byron, modeling many of his poems in the romantic vein. Much of his poetry reflects native Indian stories, told in the Victorian style. The Fakeer of Jungheera(1828) is a long lyrical poem, abundant in descriptions of the region around Bhagalpur. The melancholy narrative involves a religious mendicant, who saves his erstwhile lover from satihood, but comes to a romantic end fighting her pursuers.

Among his short poems, there are several ballads, such as The Song of the Hindustanee Minstrel:

Fired by a patriotic zeal he also wrote a good bit of nationalistic poetry, some quite openly rebellious, as in The Golden Vase:

Oh! when our country writhes in galling chains

When her proud masters scourge her like a dog;

If her wild cry be borne upon the gale,

Our bosoms to the melancholy sound

Should swell, and we should rush to her relief,

Like some, at an unhappy parent’s wail!

And when we know the flash of patriot swords

Is unto spirits longing to be free,

Like Hope’e returning light; we should not pause

Till every tyrant dread our feet, or till we find

Graves…

This anti-imperialist fervor also separated him from the Anglo-Indian (then Eurasian) community, who were overwhelmingly pro-British. At one point, he urged his fellow Anglo-Indians that it would be

in their interest to unite and be cooperative with the other native inhabitants of India. Any other course will subject them to greater opposition than they have at present.[6]

Despite his poetic bent, and his flamboyant dresses, he never showed much interest in women, though he was a strong advocate for female emancipation. The women in his poetry also appear “a little wooden and lacking in individuality”.[1] A 1905 biography subtly hints that his expulsion may have had some underpinnings of homophobia; all his student meetings were exclusively attended by young male students.[7]

Influence

His ideas had a profound influence on the social movement that came to be known as the “Bengal Renaissance” in early 19th century Bengal. And despite being viewed as something of an iconoclast by others like Alexander Duff and other (largely evangelical) Christian Missionaries; later in Duff’s General Assembly’s Institution, Derozio’s ideas on the acceptance of the rational spirit were accepted partly as long as they were not in conflict with basic tenets of Christianity, and as long as they critiqued orthodox Hinduism.

Derozio was an atheist [8] but his ideas were also partly responsible for the conversion of upper caste Hindus like Krishna Mohan Banerjee and Lal Behari Dey to Christianity. Many other students like Tarachand Chakraborti became leaders in the Brahmo Samaj.[9]

Cārvāka (Sanskrit: चार्वाक), also known as Lokāyata, is a system of Indian philosophy that assumes various forms of philosophical skepticism and religious indifference.[1] It is named after its founder, Cārvāka, author of the Bārhaspatya-sūtras.[2]

In overviews of Indian philosophy, Cārvāka is classified as a “faithless” (nāstika) system, the same classification as is given to Buddhism and Jainism.[3][4] It is characterized as a materialistic and atheistic school of thought. While this branch of Indian philosophy is not considered to be part of the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, it is noteworthy as evidence of a materialistic movement within Hinduism.[5][6]

Name and origins

The name Lokāyata can be traced to Kautilya’s Arthashastra, which refers to three ānvīkṣikīs (logical philosophies), Yoga, Samkhya and Lokayata. Lokayata here still refers to logical debate (disputatio, “criticism”) in general and not to a materialist doctrine in particular. Similarly, Saddaniti and Buddhaghosa in the 5th century connect the “Lokayatas” with the Vitandas (sophists).

Only from about the 6th century is the term restricted to the school of the Lokyātikas. The name Cārvāka is first used in the 7th century by the philosopher Purandara, who refers to his fellow materialists as “the Cārvākas”, and it is used by the 8th century philosophers Kamalaśīla and Haribhadra. Shankara, on the other hand, always uses Lokāyata, not Cārvāka.[7] The etymological meaning of the word Cārvāka is ‘a person who is clever in speech and is extremely fond of wrangling (debate)’.

E. W. Hopkins, in his The Ethics of India (1924) assumes that Cārvāka philosophy is co-eval with Buddhism, mentioning “the old Cārvāka or materialist of the 6th century BC”; Rhys Davids assumes that lokayata in ca. 500 BC came to mean “skepticism” in general without yet being organized as a philosophical school, and that the name of a villain of the Mahabharata, Cārvāka, was attached to the position in order to disparage it. The earliest positive statement of skepticism is preserved from the epic period, in the Ramayana.

regard only that which is an object of perception, and cast behind your back whatever is beyond the reach of your senses (2.108)

The Cārvāka school thus appears to have gradually grown out of generic skepticism in the Mauryan period, but its existence as an organized body cannot be ascertained for times predating the 6th century. The Barhaspatya sutras were likely also composed in Mauryan times, predating 150 BC, based on a reference in the Mahabhasya of Patanjali (7.3.45).[8]

Loss of original works

Chatterjee and Datta explain that our understanding of Cārvāka philosophy is fragmentary, based largely on criticism of the ideas by other schools, and that it is not a living tradition:

“Though materialism in some form or other has always been present in India, and occasional references are found in the Vedas, the Buddhistic literature, the Epics, as well as in the later philosophical works we do not find any systematic work on materialism, nor any organised school of followers as the other philosophical schools possess. But almost every work of the other schools states, for refutation, the materialistic views. Our knowledge of Indian materialism is chiefly based on these.”[9]

Available evidence suggests that Cārvāka philosophy was set out in the Barhaspatya sutras, probably in Mauryan times. Neither this text nor any other original text of the Cārvāka school of philosophy has been preserved. Its principal works are known only from fragments cited by its Hindu and Buddhist opponents. Cārvāka philosophy appears to have died out some time in the 15th century.

Countering the argument that the Cārvākas opposed all that was good in the Vedic tradition, Dale Riepe says, “It may be said from the available material that Cārvākas hold truth, integrity, consistency, and freedom of thought in the highest esteem.”[10]

Tattvopaplavasimha of Jayaraasi Bhatta

The Tattvopaplavasimha of Jayarashi Bhatta (ca. 8th century) is often cited as the only extant authentic Cārvāka text, but which also shows Madhyamaka influence. It is, in any case, among the most important documents for the study of the Cārvāka school.

Beliefs

The Cārvāka school of philosophy had a variety of atheistic, materialistic, and naturalistic beliefs.

Religion is invented by man

The Carvaka believed that religion was invented and made up by men, having no divine authority.

The three authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves, and demons.

All the well-known formulae of the pandits, jarphari, turphari, etc.

and all the obscene rites for the queen commanded in Aswamedha,

these were invented by buffoons, and so all the various kinds of presents to the priests,

while the eating of flesh was similarly commanded by night-prowling demons.

Madhavacharya and Cārvāka

Madhavacharya, the 13th & 14th-century Vedantic philosopher from South India starts his famous work The Sarva-darsana-sangraha with a chapter on the Cārvāka system with the intention of refuting it. After invoking, in the Prologue of the book, the Hindu gods Shiva and Vishnu, (“by whom the earth and rest were produced”), Madhavacharya asks, in the first chapter:

…but how can we attribute to the Divine Being the giving of supreme felicity, when such a notion has been utterly abolished by Charvaka, the crest-gem of the atheistic school, the follower of the doctrine of Brihaspati? The efforts of Charvaka are indeed hard to be eradicated, for the majority of living beings hold by the current refrain:

While life is yours, live joyously;

None can escape Death’s searching eye:

When once this frame of ours they burn,

How shall it e’er again return?

Quotations attributed to Cārvāka from Sarva-Darsana-Sangraha

There is no heaven, no final liberation, nor any soul in another world,

Nor do the actions of the four castes, order, &c, produce any real effect,

The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic’s three staves, and smearing oneself with ashes —

Brihaspati says, these are but means of livelihood for those who have no manliness nor sense.

In this school there are four elements, earth, water, fire and air;

and from these four elements alone is intelligence produced —

just like the intoxicating power from kinwa &c, mixed together;

since in “I am fat”, “I am lean”, these attributes abide in the same subject,

and since fatness, &c, reside only in the body, it alone is the soul and no other, and such phrases as “my body” are only significant metaphorically.

If a beast slain in the Jyothishtoma rite will itself go to heaven,

why then does not the sacrificer forthwith offer his own father?

If the Sraddha produces gratification to beings who are dead,

then why not give food down below to those who are standing on the house-top?

If he who departs from the body goes to another world,

how is it that he come not back again, restless for love of his kindred?

Hence it is only as a means of livelihood that Brahmans have established here

all these ceremonies for the dead, — there is no other fruit anywhere.

The three authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves, and demons.

All the well-known formulae of the pandits, jarphari, turphari, etc.

and all the obscene rites for the queen commanded in Aswamedha,

these were invented by buffoons, and so all the various kinds of presents to the priests,

while the eating of flesh was similarly commanded by night-prowling demons. [12]

Those parts which survive indicate a strong anti-clerical bias, accusing Brahmins of fostering religious beliefs only so they could obtain a livelihood. The proper aim of a Charvakan or Charvaka, according to these sources, was to live a prosperous, happy, and productive life in this world.

Astika schools, Buddhism, and Jainism versus Cārvāka

Cārvākas cultivated a philosophy wherein theology and what they called “speculative metaphysics” were to be avoided. The Cārvākas accepted direct perception as the surest method to prove the truth of anything. Though their opponents tried to caricature the Lokayatikas’ arguments, the latter did not completely reject the method of inference. Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya quotes S. N. Dasgupta:

“Purandara (a Lokāyata philosopher) […] admits the usefulness of inference in determining the nature of all worldly things where perceptual experience is available; but inference cannot be employed for establishing any dogma regarding the transcendental world, or life after death or the law of karma which cannot be available to ordinary perceptual experience.”[13]

While a Cārvāka’s thought is characterized by an insistence on pleasure seeking on one hand and Jainism is known to emphasize penance on the other, Buddhism is said to stand for a “middle way”, avoiding indulgence in sensual pleasures and penance alike.[14]

The Cārvākas did not deny the difference between the dead and the living and recognized both as realities. A person lives, the same person dies: that is a perceived, and hence the only provable, fact. In this regard, the Cārvākas found themselves at odds with all the other religions of the time.

Rejection of the soul as separate from the body led the Cārvākas to confine their thinking to this world only.

Abul Fazl on Lokāyata

Ain-i-Akbari, written by Abul Fazl, the famous historian of Akbar’s court, mentions a symposium of philosophers of all faiths held in 1578 at Akbar’s insistence. Some Cārvāka thinkers are said to have participated in this symposium.[15]

Under the heading “Nastika,” Abul Fazl has referred to the good work, judicious administration, and welfare schemes that were emphasized by the Cārvāka lawmakers. Somadeva has also mentioned the Cārvāka method of defeating the enemies of the nation. Contrary to popular opinion, these so-called “peasant religions(or opinions)”— the direct translation of the word “Lokayata”—never demanded that the practitioner give up happiness; all they said was that that the means of happiness is giving up that which contradicts Cārvāka, who claimed that (material) pleasures suffice to give happiness to the (material) body.

^ Though this school of thoughts is not commonly considered as a part of six orthodox schools of Indian Philosophy, Haribhadra Suri, a Jain mendicant from c. seventh century, considers this school as a part of those six in his book ShaDdarshan Samucchaya. Potter, Karl H. (2007). The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies: Buddhist philosophy from 350 to 600 A.D.. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publications. pp. 435–436. ISBN 9788120819689.

^ “There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable.” Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (SN 56.11)

Aroj Ali Matubbar (Bengali: আরজ আলী মাতুব্বর) (1900–1985), a self-taught peasant-philosopher and apostate of Bangladesh, was born in British India on 17 December 1900 (Bengali year 1307) in the village of Lamchari in Charbaria union, about 11 km from Barisal town,[1] currently in Bangladesh. He was born to a poor farming family. He studied for only a few months at the village maqtab. This brief dabble in institutional education centered only on the Quran and other Islam studies. He gathered most of his knowledge on varied subjects, including science and philosophy, through his own efforts.[1]

Contents

Approach to life and creation

Matubbar proved to be a thinker who had a rationalist and humanist approach and who wrote against ignorance, superstition, and religious fundamentalism.[1] He came to be considered an iconoclast for writing against established religious doctrines. For example, he questioned Islamic law of inheritance as he failed to reconcile the suggested mode of sharing of inherited property. He wrote several books braving his lack of formal schooling. Aroj Ali’s writings reflect his philosophy about life and the world in simple language.

Matubbar befriended a number of scholars and academics of Barisal town, including Professor Kazi Golam Kadir and Professor Muhammad Shamsul Haque. His books were always in danger of being banned by government that since they contained certain religious claims. Matubbar was arrested and taken into police custody for his book, Sotyer Shondhaney (The Quest for Truth).[2] He was subjected to harassment and threat for his writings throughout his life, as many of them challenged religious statements and claims.[2]

Early life

Matubbar lost his father in his early age. When he was 12 years old, his inherited property of 2 acres (8,100 m2) of land was auctioned off as the minor boy was unable to pay land tax. The landless boy faced even more critical crisis when a local usurer called him out of his ancestral homestead. Destitute Araz Ali grew up somehow on the charity of others and by working as a farm labourer. He could not attend in any school due to his poverty. A kindhearted man helped him finish the Bangla Primers. Persevering as he was, he kept on reading more and more. To satisfy his thirst for knowledge he studied all the Bangla books in Barisal Public Library like a serious student. Philosophy as a subject interested him most, but there were not enough books in the collection there. A teacher of philosophy at the B M College, Kazi Ghulam Quadir, was impressed by his depth of knowledge and understanding, so he helped him borrow books from the college library. This is how his mind was shaped.

Living

Due to financial constraints, Matubbar could not pursue any academic course or achieve and formal institutional degree. He lived mostly on subsistence farming. He learned surveying techniques and began his life as a private land surveyor in his locality. This enabled him to accumulate some capital and he could own some land to start farming.

Founder

He founded Araz Monjil Public Library at a cost of 60 thousand Taka in a remote village of Barisal District under the funding of Aroj Ali Matubbar trust fund.

Death

He died on 15 March 1985 (1st Chaitra of the Bengali year 1392 ) in Barisal, Bangladesh. He donated his eyes for transplantation after his death.[1] He donated his body which was received by the Anatomy Department of Sher-e-Bangla Medical College and used for dissection by the medical students. After his death in 1985, Aroj Ali Matubbar came to be regarded as prolific thinker that rural Bangladesh ever produced, and an iconoclast who was not afraid of speaking out against entrenched belief and superstitions.[3]

Writings and publications

Matubbar had to take a lot of trouble for publishing his books. He himself drew the cover of his first book which was written in 1952 and published twenty one years later in 1973 under the title Satyer Sandhane. This book gained him reputation in the locality as a “learned man”. In the preface he wrote:

“I was thinking of many things, my mind was full of questions, but haphazardly. I then started jotting down questions, not for writing a book, but only to remember these questions later. Those questions were driving my mind towards an endless ocean and I was gradually drifting away from the fold of religion.”

He made six propositions in this book which reflected the nature of his philosophical questions. These are:

The eight questions he posed in the first proposition exemplify his approach. These are (a) Who am I (self)?, (b) Is Life incorporeal or corporal ? (c) Is mind and his/soul one, and the same? (d) What is the relationship of life with the body and the mind? (e) Can we recognize or identify life? (f) Am I free? (g) Will the soul without body continue to have ‘knowledge’ even after it leaves the body at death? and finally (h) How does life can come into and go out of the body?

Books

He was a different type of writer. Because of his rural background it was not possible on his part to remove darkness covering the society, but with the dim torch he held, he tried to see the truth, wherever he could, without fear or doubt.[4] In Bangladesh, his writings were censored.[5] Following are his writings:

Shotter Shondhaney (The Quest for Truth) (1973)

Sristir Rahasya (The Mystery of Creation) (1977)

Anuman (Estimation) (1983)

Muktaman (Free Mind) (1988)

Several of his unpublished manuscripts were published posthumously under the title of Aroj Ali Matubbar Rachanabali. Some of his writings have been translated into English and compiled in a volume published by Pathak Samabesh.

Recognition and awards

Matubbar was little known to the elite educated society of the country during his life-time. His first book published in 1973 was rich with secular thought but caught little attention. It is only in the final years of life that he came to be known to the enlightened society of the country. His writings were collected and published. People in general started to take interest in his books, which although refelcted an untrained mind, posed a number of intriguing questions. Soon he rose to eminence albeit after his death in 1985.